of the 2012 election, legislation in congress and the tone of american politics. we are joined by chicago tribune columnist clarence page. live recalls, tweets, an e-mail. "washington journal" is next. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] h., congress returns later this week to washington with eight days to go to avoid the so- called fiscal cliff. two republican senators on the sunday talk shows yesterday say they agree with the president's position that both sides should avoid tax hikes on middle-class americans. also, nra executive said the group would not support any new gun laws in this country. good morning this monday, december 24, 2012. we will begin this morning with your thoughts on religion and politics. as a religion influence your political decisions?

also send us your tweet if you go to twitter.com -- we will begin with the sunday review section of the "the new york times" yesterday.

we want to get your take on this. it does religion influence your politics? with more people saying they

are unaffiliated. we want to get your take. here are some comments from facebook this morning. what are your thoughts on this december 24, 2012. it does religion influence your politics? let me show you this from "the new york times" this morning. a new poll out worldwide religion shows up that one out of six follows no religion. that is worldwide. all religions outside the united states as well.

the upi story. religious identity affect voter choice. and then on the 2012 election, here is the pew forum on

religion and public policy -- dorothy and baltimore, maryland. independent caller. what do you think? does religion influence your politics? caller: it does influence me somewhat but not so much now -- this time with obama. the reason why i say it does a little bit, you have to have a conscience when you deal with anything. especially when you make decisions for other people than yourself, you have to have a conscience. what i found very strange about the questions that have been calling into the show lately, they all keep trying to fault

one person for the people since. i don't believe in abortion but i am pro-choice because it is not my choice to condemn anybody for doing a sin to themselves. god will judge them. i should never put my beliefs on somebody else and then judge of them. host: you said that religion is affecting your political decisions less lately and you said what their reelection of president obama. can you explain that a little bit more? caller: say it again? host: you said earlier religion is impacting your political decisions less this time around. why is that? caller: not less -- i said now that what is happening is people are judging our presidents on the laws and things he may or

may not agree with -- he may not, i do not know which way. politicians should never make laws for his own religious beliefs. host: florence, ky. democratic caller. caller: the other day they had represented the brown on and a tape of him as saying the world is only 9000 years old going off the literal translation. people like that generally lack the ability to look at complex issues and try to simplify it. had the same time -- at the same time, the one to seem like they are preaching to us about the bible and abortion are the ones who seemingly lack the ability to live the way christ told them they are supposed to live. they gave to the rich.

they let the thursday turn to dust and the sick by. host: here are some more pew research numbers. differing views on the impact of religion's influence on society. is religion increasing or losing its influence on american life? is it a good thing or bad thing? 25% said religion is increasing its influence while 66% said it is losing its influence. of those numbers, 49% said it was a bad thing, 12% said it was a good thing. views of religious institutions. this is the percentage of people will agree that churches and other religious organizations are too involved in politics. the general public says 46% agreed. but unofficially at say 66 -- 67% of unaffiliated say to involved with politics.

affiliated, and at 41%. that religious institutions are too involved with politics. independent caller. go ahead, mike. caller: i would say no, religion, whether a politician is whatever religion -- mormon, as far as romney, it does not influence. but to judge in the fruits of the politicians we are voting on, that is what we should look at. i would say, yes, religion guides my life, so it will guide my choices. i judge of the fruits of those politicians. like the one gentleman earlier was saying about people who are only worried about the rich. that is not in the bible. thanks, greta, and thanks for c- span. host: republican caller. mississippi. caller: i am a religious person

and i have been my whole life. when of the greatest people i watch on television is david jeremiah. but my religion has always taught me that we have to take care of each other. i am a retired firefighter. i say that after jesus christ, firefighters love you the most because they are willing to sacrifice your life. but in this world, we have succumbed to the love of money, which is the root of all evil. rather than listen to answers that i think are given to us, we love money so much that we turn to try and keep all that we can for ourselves. we talk about the fiscal cliff. the fiscal cliff as far as i am concerned has got a solution. it was brought about by the president's committee, simpson- bowles. i think that is the answer. if anybody out there that has been internet -- i am not going to vote for anybody that does

not pass simpson-bowles because i think that is the right thing to do and it is a god-given gift to solve the problem that is going to affect our kids. thank you for letting me express myself. host: that was ken from mississippi, republican caller. he mentioned simpson-bowles. let me show you some news, the headline on avoiding the so- called fiscal cliff. here is "the new york times" frontpage. the headline --

that is "the new york times" reporting. inside the paper, they say democratic leaders say they will move forward on legislation this week only a senator mitch mcconnell of kentucky, the republican leader, will assure them it will not be filibustered -- investors anticipate a turbulent week in the market of congress and the white house continued the standout. i also note that mr. mcconnell's

own reelection bid is coming in 2014. the borrower review of the nothing to shift the anger of some self assessment of the speaker does nothing to pass it does go to the floor. the bill is not moving along, says bob corker from tennessee. here is what the republican from idaho had to say about the fiscal cliff negotiation. [video clip] >> if we get down to the end of the year and the only choice we have is to save taxes going up on the middle-class, i would support that. but i wish we had a comprehensive bill that dealt with spending, entitlement, and taxes altogether. that is really what we ought to do. host: that was senator johnny isaacson from georgia, excuse me, not from idaho. we will go back to the question here for all of you. we will continue to give you news from the newspapers. but how does religion and law was your politics? democratic caller. go ahead. caller: i had originally called

in response to set oralism in government, which i prefer -- secularism in government, which are for. a country which invites everyone into it, all religions and nationalities, must by definition be secular. any religious direction we choose is going to favor somebody, and i thought that is what we were trying to avoid. at least i thought that is what jefferson meant when he talked about religious freedoms. host: ok. caller: freedom from religion. host: when you go to vote in a presidential election or congressional election, what are the big factors in your decision? caller: usually economic. i did not consider -- i don't consider religion unless it interferes with some legislation. it plays a very little role in

my life. host: would you call yourself unaffiliated religiously? caller: relatively i am an atheist. so, yes, i am unaffiliated. host: here is the "christian science monitor," their cover. the new face of faith. what is happening in new england, the countries most secular region, may have a future of american religion. traditional religions are seeing their ranks thinned out while alternative churches are becoming more popular. the arc is symbolic of a transforming religious landscape in new england --

will read a little bit more from the magazine piece this morning to continue to give your thoughts on religion and whether it and loved politics. loraine and michigan. republican number. caller: it influences my voting because -- acs, like before, that is a religion. i should have a right to vote with our savior. a country founded on the bible is not a country at all -- makes it very clear. you have to have your belief system. without it, i think a that will exist. host: kathleen, of riverside, ohio. democratic caller.

caller: i grew up catholic and went to catholic school but i am no longer a catholic. i would not define myself as a catholic. i got into comparative religious studies in college. i found that my core value system was based -- or still is based on some of the religious or spiritual values i learned of the catholic church and also by studying other religions. and i found some of those core values very similar to things in the competition about fairness and justice. so, i do find that those motivating factors are my core values learned within the catholic church and unions and actually reading the constitution, they are very similar. and i find myself looking at them -- looking at our representatives regarding their voting records and actions in regard to, say, equity in education and access to health care and fiar pay.

and i actually have to say i link the fairness and focus on just this in regard to domestic issues and international issues. i do not apply those values just to u.s. citizens but to apply the same desires for fairness and justice with regard to our foreign policy, u.s. foreign- policy. i do find that my religious upbringing does -- is interwoven in however prison as. host: rich from tennessee. independent caller. caller: merry christmas, greta. host: good morning, merry christmas. caller: i echo the last caller. i would say my politics changed from republican to it independent. i voted the constitution party the last presidential election. but i found that most people who are serious voters do consider

moral beliefs, our laws are based on morality. whether the source is a religion or their own sense of morality which they probably borrowed from other religions, how can you not consider morality and believes when you are voting? otherwise, you are simply pushing a lever based upon whims. to me it is a natural thing to consider religion and believes when -- beliefs when you are considering issues. whether the economy, health care, anything else. it is informed by what you have been taught, how you have been raised, how you feel about fairness and other things. host: does it make you more inclined to vote for one party over the other? caller:yes, if i had to choose

between republicans and democrats i would lean republican it simply because the democrats officially at their convention -- they seem to shy away from any talk about morality, about god. and even though they will turn around and embrace doing what is right, which is just doublespeak. you are saying the same thing -- even president obama inbox scripture -- invokes scripture. but on the platforms, on things like abortion. if i could make one statement about an earlier caller, that she cannot impose our own beliefs on others. that is ridiculous. we do it all the time. anytime you vote on an issue, such as slavery, would you say i did not believe in slavery but i cannot tell someone else they cannot own slaves? it is just an absurd viewpoint.

i feel that, yes, it does and for my leaning toward one party over another. host: that was rich from tennessee. independent caller. switching from republican to independent. here it is the daily call our website what this had lied. -- crapo per "the new york times" story said he registered a blood alcohol content of 0.11%, the legal limit of va is 0.08%. mr. crapo, 61 years old. as a january 1 court date and inside "the new york times" a statement was given by the office. the senator said -- i made a mistake for which i apologize to my family and constituents and others to put trust in me. i accept all of these possibilities and will deal with whatever penalty and also take

measures to ensure the circumstances never repeated. mr. crapo has been in the senate since 1999 and served for six years and house of representatives and before that he was easily reelected in 2010 and will not have to run again until 2016. some of the headlines. the front page of "the washington times" this morning. nra chief -- enforce the existing gun laws. at the top executive from the nra was on the sunday talk shows. here is what david keene had to say. [video clip] >> we will continue to oppose a ban -- we will continue to impose a ban on semi-automatic weapons. these are not military weapons. if we quit the army would ar-15 we would be be in by every third world dictatorship. military weapons are fully automatic weapons. that is illegal. you do not get those. that is what -- the impression

is that is what we are talking about but it is not. we are talking about sporting arms. host: david keen on "face the nation." more headlines about the nra. here is "the wall street journal" -- the side store -- fear of new restrictions drive crowds to gun shows. and then also in the papers this morning, here is the headline -- the front page of "the new york times" --

so, an in-depth story in "the new york times" about state effort and the push back they received from the gun lobby on that level. and then here is "the star advertiser" this morning. this photo of president obama attending fuel services of late senator inouye. this morning's paper. back to your phone calls here. steve in indiana. democratic caller. caller: religion should have nothing to do with politics.

if religion -- if you let religion in, then you are going to end up like iran or afghanistan. look at what happens in them countries. they tell you what you can believe and stuff, and that is not the way things should be. host: pensacola, florida. republican caller. caller: in response to an earlier caller about thomas jefferson being a secularist -- he actually was a declared christian. he believed in christian principles. and most of his politics were used in an 1892 court decision, supreme court decision that says 9-0 that this country was founded on christian principles. it didn't mean that it was freedom from religion. it was freedom of religion. we are a christian country. we are not like, as the last

caller says, the failed governments of iran and iraq because our religion. those are terrorist religions. ours is based on the love and piece of jesus christ. host: markets from pensacolam fromarcus from pensacola. rex, go ahead. caller: religion impact politics the mother you like it or not. as christopher dixon said -- [inaudible] one of president's secretary cannot 1 pollution-control because if of jesus was coming back. and representative brown, the religious evangelical fanatic would do away with the

department of education and have everybody home schooled and taught young earth creationism. also the roman catholic church marrying up with a gop -- "religious oppression." [indiscernible] and not allowing to oppress whole continent, especially women and gays and to sexually abuse young children. you have a large group of middle age white men who are bitterly obsessed with what women do with their bodies. religion affects us every day. it's good that was rex, democrat from arizona -- host: that was rex from arizona. let's go back to the funeral -- that line from "the new york times."

bill in rhode island, independent caller. go ahead. caller: my comment is, i believe religion is a personal thing and it should not be in government. although the moralities do affect people. i believe if you believe in

religion, you can't believe in be pro-th penalty and an life. that is my belief. host: did you hear me reference "gut question is science monitor" recent addition? talking about the changing landscape. this is what they report -- between 2010 and the catholic church lost 28% of members in new hampshire and 33% in maine. it closed at least 69 parishes in greater boston. the southern baptist convention established 180 new churches in northern new england according to a census and about 50 of them and have the buildings once owned by mainline churches. other denominations are growing, too, including pentecostal, assemblies of god, international

church of the foursquare gospel, 7 day adventist open 55 new churches in massachusetts, new hampshire, and maine between 2000-2010. are using this in rhode island? caller: yes. and a lot of that has to do with child abuse. a lot of people have walked away -- host: left the church over those reasons? caller: yes. host: inside the piece, that also right that the -- -- they also write that --

let's go to peggy from texas.

democratic caller. caller: i was saying religion -- republicans are so gung ho on religion during the election but they did not practice the religion. i do not think that god plans -- i am a baptist. i did not think god wants us to our religion into politics. they should keep it out of politics. people like they used to have. host: what do you mean by that? caller: they bring of religion, the republicans bring of religion about birth control, that is not in the bible. they bring of religion about everything -- everything they bring of religion about and i think they should keep religion out. because that does not influence my politics because i am going to vote for the best person, not the one that is religious. host: john, new hampshire. republican number. caller:hi, how were you doing?

-- high, how're you doing? i think the secularists take things too far. the terms separation of church and state was a phrase used by jefferson and one letter, one founder and one phrase by one founder in one letter. jefferson also said something to the effect that -- i did not know verbatim -- of all the world had been questioned -- if people had heard jesus' words as they came from his lips the whole world would be christian. i respect all religions. i respect everybody. but the country was formed on judeo-christian philosophy. also, if i may mention, of the original symbol for the united states that thomas jefferson suggested was a picture of -- a couple of anglo-saxon brothers and on the other side was pillar of fire, the israelites were

being led by the pillar of fire. what i am trying to say is, but countries swings so hard to the extremes that they are making folks who are christians feel like they are not welcome here. and i wish they would stop it because it is really spoiling a lot of things. i apologize -- for my nervousness. host: hang on the lines -- here is a viewer on twitter. how do you respond? caller: i understand what jefferson said, that it is a private matter, and i am not saying that it should be forced on everybody. everyone should be able to believe what they want to. it is the freedom of the mind. but i think we are at a place right now where there is a type

of zealousness that a lot of the secular people are just becoming bullies. you see billboards saying that jesus and santa claus and the devil and all of these things -- why throw sand in people's eyes? why don't we leave it alone? then we all just please get back together and be americans in this country? host: here is "usa today" with this headline -- this is a study put together by the nonpartisan center for the torate.f american elect the director of the center will we joining us spurts -- thursday on the last hour of "washington journal" to dig deep on the numbers on voter turnout.

here is the world sensor -- section in "the washington times." egyptian opposition alleges of voter fraud. that is "washington times" reporting on that. also, a dozen states and cities will raise the minimum wage jenna refers. efforts afoot in congress and other state legislation -- legislatures to put the increases next year -- we will turn to that issue in the last 30 minutes or show -- or so. your take on whether or not

congress should be increasing the minimum wage. also on the fiscal cliff, "washington post" frontpage this morning, the tea party largely silenced on fiscal cliff. some in the movement feel that no voice on the core issue. paige, ibm member. does religion influence of politics? caller: religion does influence politics. not mine, per say, but i watched c-span all the time and my comment is religion, like with the palestinians and the jewish conflict over there, why do you guys never bring up that israel was purchased for those people over there? it is almost like a pilgrim and indian situation. host: what does this have to do

with this? caller: it is all about christianity and muslim. almost like the old school crusades. host: ok, all right. camp hill, pennsylvania. republican caller. caller: i would like to comment that in the democratic national convention, god was taken out of the platform and when he was put back in it took three votes and when it was put back in, they booed god, which means to me the democratic party is a godless party. with the reelection of president obama, the slaughter of innocent unborn babies will continue. we have a president who supports partial birth abortion. but the americans made their decision. they want higher taxes, they want the slaughter of babies to continue and i find it's totally -- i am totally disillusioned with the american people for voting this president

back into office. host: in new york. democratic caller. caller: i am in favor of religion and politics, because i believe our whole country has been found the on judicial system. the fact you are not to steal or to murder or to do, you know, thou shall not, the 10 commandments, are based upon the religious system. when you go into court, you have to put your hand on the bible to swear to tell the truth and nothing but the truth, so help you god. so absolutely. this is one of the reasons i would like to comment that our country is going to the place

where it is now because we are removing those principles, we are removing the principles out of our laws. this is why we are seeing what we are seeing now. host: "the new york post" has a this headline. piece also on the front page of "the drudge report." philip in danville, west virginia. independent caller. caller: i just wanted to say that our country was founded on

religion. our forefathers, they came here to practice a religion. if our leaders in congress, in d.c., if they are not leading us to god, they are leading us further away from god. that would be a huge mistake for our country. host: patrick, at independent caller. caller: yes, good morning. i would like to comment that for all the individuals who constantly state the u.s. was built on the christian principles, if you look in world history, america had the largest genocide, they killed indians, but enslaved africans. so, i do not see how the more religious thing comes in a period when you look at -- comes in. if you look at the republican party, full of hypocrisy. the only time they care about

life is when it is in the will but once you are born you are on your own to survive however you can. so, i do go to church and i believe in religion but i believe it is personal because my god may not be your god, you may have another god. i cannot look at myself and say the religious police i have should be put on somebody else. host: tom us on twitter response to the article in "the washington post" about the tea party being silent on the fiscal cliff negotiations. we will go to joe >> in florida, democratic caller. does influence -- religion influence your politics? caller: i converted to seventh- day adventists and 35 years ago. one of the things that attracted me to the church is the fact that we never speak of politics

from the pulpit. the only possible if exception to that is the issue of religious liberty. that is the only political-type issue we ever speak about from the pulpit. host: what religion did you leave? caller: roman catholic. host: what about the roman catholic church and their attempt to influence politics did you not like? caller: when i was in the church, there wasn't that much politics in the pulpit. i understanding now as there is more direct speaking of candidates and things from the pulpit. i believe it is out of place. it happens in the evangelical church probably more and i do not think it is appropriate. look, i go to church and i really do not know the political beliefs of most of my fellow members. we are there to worship god and

to preach the gospel. host: from the "christian science monitor." women are significantly more religious than men. it is true not only in america but all but a small number of countries. also, they have this graphic. blacks are more religious than any other race or ethnic group in america. mormons are the most religious of any specific religious group. jews are the least religious. jerry in columbus, ohio. independent caller. you are our last on this. caller: i want to address -- george washington signed an agreement with tripoli, and he said in 1796, we have no problem signing a treaty with the muslims as the government of the united states is not christian. and thomas jefferson wrote the baptist in 18 07 sing "neither

picks my pocket or break my leg of my neighbor worships one god or 1000 dogs." people should read james madison written in 1783 and thomas jefferson on religious liberty. jesus christ, when they wanted to make him head of some city there and he left it, he did not want anything to do with politics. the friend of mine said i saw a bumper sticker you would like, jerri -- what it is a, steve? who would jesus bomb. i wish brian lamb would have the jefferson -- jefferson wrote his own new testament and i wish brian lamb would have somebody on it. i never read it but i would like to know what it is about. i appreciate c-span. having wonderful day.

host: thanks, jerry. columbus, ohio. we will keep talking about culture, politics, and social changes in america. coming up next, bill bennett, former education secretary. and clarence page from "the chicago tribune," syndicated columnist. we will be right back. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> issue is not whether it will be stigmatized or morally condemned. he is. precisely the same false claims. the issue is how many times the government can punish him as a result of that moral condemnation. the answer in the double jeopardy clause is ones. >> starting monday and throughout christmas week, c- span radio is featuring supreme court oral arguments by current justices before they were on the

bench. all this week at 7:00 p.m. eastern time. you can listen to c-span radio in the washington-baltimore area, 90.1 fm, xm satellite radio channel 119 or online at c-span radio.org. >> the taping system was top secret. it seems the only people who know for certain of the existence or my father, his secretary, and the secret service agent who installed it. that is until president nixon made the idea of white house taping famous and infamous. and other presidential recording systems were revealed. against the backdrop of watergate, the concept of secret taping can seem problematic. but it is beyond doubt that it is a unique and invaluable historical resource. on these tapes, history unfold in real-time and the most dramatic possible way. we hear the tense confrontations of the civil rights movement and the life or death decisions being made during the cuban

missile crisis. >> caroline kennedy joins "listening in" editor on the discussion on the 1962 recordings of the late president from office. tuesday evening at 7:00 in eastern on c-span2. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we want to welcome back to our table, bill bennett. let's just continue the conversation we were having with our viewers. does religion and flow of your politics? guest: sure, i think it influences a lot of people's politics. daniel patrick moynihan, a democrat senator from new york, one of the great men of the senate -- george will things he was the model of will a senator should be -- taught us all that culture is more important than politics and terms of moving a society. political leaders in politics can alter the culture. we can see that effect, too. but culture really affects politics more than a big part of the culture is religion, what people believe.

the best example i can think of would be martin luther king, jr.. he was a minister of the christian faith. he had a profound political -- political effect. and the religious beliefs, he said, he could do no other than follow his religious beliefs that led him to political action. i remember going down to the martin luther king center at mrs. king's invitation of speaking their during the time was there -- probably 20 years ago. i referred to rebel and -- ran martin luther king as reverend king and not dr. king and she said, thank you. reverend is what what mattered most. that is what the find him and set the course of his politics. host: what do you make of this piece in "the christian science monitor" talking about the changing landscape in new england. people are leaving the mainline churches and going toward alternative churches because, some are saying, these churches

to not get involved in politics. guest: that are going to the ones that cannot get involved in politics. it is a complicated message. i imagine if you probe a little more deeply with the colts been interviewed, you find all sorts of reasons. people not just turn away from religion because it is getting involved in politics. it also like the message. they like what the church stands for. i notice a move in areas of traditional religious faith toward more evangelical churches -- whether they are involved in politics and not. some are and some are not. what people want is a stronger religious message. to some extent, for many people this is a message separated from politics. for others it might lead to more political engagement. my own church, the catholic church -- i heard a couple of earlier callers refer to that -- it severed body blows with the scandals and so on. and people wondered whether the church has lost its way.

i think it is recovering. but i understand why people were so upset. i had to write an auditory aback when, 10 years ago -- editorial back when, 10 years ago, when my friends, the cardinal needed to step down because he was recommending priests who were unsuited, passing them from parish to parish. so, a traditional religions have gotten criticized, in some ways hurt themselves. other churches have opened their doors with a very appealing message. marketing and learning how to get a flock together is now part of training in seminary. there is that factor, too. host: inside the article they make note that women are significantly more religious than men. blacks are more religious than any other race or ethnic group in america. given the wrote -- voter turnout and republicans in not getting the female vote and not getting the african-american minorities,

what is going on? you would think these groups are more religious would be more gop friendly? caller: there is a religion and religion. some religions have been traditionally been more sympathetic to some political parties than others. the southern evangelicals have traditionally -- over 30 or 40 years, been more sympathetic to conservative candidates. but they were very strong for jimmy carter, too. and for bill clinton, because they were southerners and themselves were of the faith and persuasions. but there were some of factors going on this time and this election. the obama team at the national level but at such a job, such an excellent job turning out its vote. the republican team did not. if you look at the same voters and how they are voting at state level and local level, you will get a different picture. we have a republican congress, a pretty conservative republican congress. people were comfortable voting

for those folks. we look at governors, we have 30 republican governors now. so, many of the same people split their vote. they went for barack obama on the national level and when four republicans on local level. it is always more complicated. host: what is the future been like for the republican party? guest: we have no future. haven't you heard? we are done and finished. host: how do they deal on what seal -- guest: do have to argue for your point of view. i do not think we made a good argument at a national level. again, the argument was made effectively at the state level. there are 30 republican governors. that is a pretty big majority. there are a group -- majority of republicans in the house. at the national level, people can talk about whether the messenger was week, whether mitt romney was a great candidate and

not. i did not think very many people think it was a great candidate. pit bull think he was a fine political -- human being a good political candidate. obama is a great political candidate. not my cup of tea. do not think he has done a good job as president. he knows how to do it and his team knows how to get out the vote. i think what the republicans do of the future is go back to their message, refinance, tried to make it more appealing without diluting it and pay more attention to who is delivering the message. but the first thing you have to do is remind people to use stand for and speak for the whole country. cannot speak for just one part. do not segment. i think the democrats actually succeed by segmenting the what they do is they add up one of segments. first we will appeal to women, that hispanics, then appealed to young people. you added up and you can get a majority. that is one way of doing it. it corresponds with the cold to a past 30 years.

if you go to a college or university you will hear over and over again, reality is defined by race, gender, sex, and ethnicity and class. so, that is a part of a lot of americans thinking. democrats, i think, operate with that in mind and build up a majority. what republicans have to do is talk to the whole country. talk to people about their common needs, once, war is, and aspirations and what a good messenger i think the republican party can be back. we have been worse off. we were worse off act of the goldwater defeat by johnson and certainly worse off after watergate. remember, haley barbour said in a committee meeting whether we should drop the name republican party. the republican party of abraham lincoln to drop its name, god forbid. so, this is a serious time for republicans and a time for reflection the we have been in worse places. host: let's go on to gun control. nra executives on the talk shows. here are the headlines.

also at a news conference on friday echo something you had said earlier in the week and that is perhaps to put a security guard, some sort of police presence at every school in this country. as the former education secretary, how do you think it would be a good idea? guest: i think a decision should be made locally. if i understood the and reposition -- it is not my position. i have agreed with them in the past and disagreed in the past. i had a history back in 1989- 1990 a drugs are when i banned the importation of assault weapons. -- when i was drugczar. and i would never be forgiven by some in the nra for that. whether it was effective, an open question. i believe i have an open mind. their position is the federal government should provide school security. i am not for that. this is a local position and i cannot think it should be a national mandate. let school boards and local

communities decide whether they want armed security in schools. i do not think it is a crazy idea, as a lot of people suggest. and i would point out that it is about 30% of our school systems, schools currently have armed guards. in d.c. you will see security guards at schools. but they are not armed. but in a lot of the country, they are armed. i think it is a decision for a local school board to make. the reason is -- yes, i understand it is a gun in the school. some people regarded as anathema. i regarded as giving yourself a chance. jeffrey goldberg, "the atlantic magazine" a magisterial article -- he is not a member of the nra -- he looks at the evidence and says, look, someone comes into your home and a school and they are brandishing a weapon. would you prefer to have a weapon or not? some people just don't not like the feel or touch or idea of a weapon at all but a lot of

people would say, my child, my kids in the classroom, i would prefer to have a chance. so, the mayor of orlando, cannot remember her last name, she said let's have all the schools have armed security. fairfax county, close to us, they have security people. so, let it be a local decision. host: wide local versus federal government? guest: they know their facts and circumstances as well. they know what will go down and the community and that is the community that ought to be in charge. the community of to be in charge of its schools. you would not want to force this kind of thing in a place where people do not wanted. it would not work. and that think it would be wrong. so, make it a local issue. host: let's go back to that line of what the nra chief would say. no new gun measures. you disagree? there are efforts underway to reinstitute the assault weapon ban. you disagree? guest: i just -- you know, i

don't know if i disagree or wonder if it will do good. the cry from anyone from mayor bloomberg on is to get rid of these weapons. i was on "meet the press" what senator feinstein a week ago, i guess. she talked about the banshee introduced -- during the clinton era. 1994-2004. two things about it. studies suggest that it had almost no effect. it was a feel-good thing. let's just ban all of these bad weapons. it had almost no effect on gun violence, availability of the weapons. second -- and this is kind of an odd thing and i said to or on the set. you had 940 exceptions. rifles that look like the bushmaster, ar-15 that were accepted. so what exactly are we accomplishing? automatic weapons are already off the table. so we are talking about semi- automatic weapons and things like it. so the question is, if you out right bandies, what have you

banned and what about new guns that will be made that the not fit the specifications? i think frankly it probably does not do much good. the studies that were done, studies at studies said it showed no appreciable effect. if people want to do that and feel they have done something, that is one thing. host: denny has been waiting in montana. -- danny. caller: am i on the air? i want to make a comment when we heard the word "religion." religion is what men and women would do to try to appease god. god the father has been at

peace to pay for our sins and go to the cross and shed his blood for us. it is a gift of god. these people that are religious , catholicism is not religion. guest: i grew up as a catholic. a protestant goes to heaven and sees a wall. "those are the catholics. they believe they are the only ones up here." chris janney certainly qualifies as a religion -- christianity certainly qualifies as a religion.

religion is what a person does with his solitude. now it would be video games for a lot of young people. if you see mean something more than that. but christianity certainly qualifies. this is a big, big day. host: democratic caller from mississippi. caller: yes, ma'am. host: go ahead. caller: religion -- christianity -- only one christ came and he had only one message.

talking about state rights. state rights get the routes from the south, where a state could be free to control the blacks. we talk about religion and the republican party. the republican party is against the poor and is influenced by the southerners. guest: i would disagree against the poor. sometimes we do not make their cases as effectively as we should. never yield the high ground of compassion to the left. the number of food stamps that are being given is at record numbers. if we had seen the numbers like

this go through the republican administration. childhood poverty has risen. we can disagree about how to address the issues. this notion has been effectively marketed. if we survey what self identified religious people do with their time and money, they give much more to the poor and service. host: what are the politics of the so-called fiscal cliff? we have a headline. they are going to feel the brunt of the so-called fiscal cliff. democrats being better at this argument in protecting the poor. guest: i think they are better

at the argument but i do not think the argument is persuasive. who win the rhetorical battle on the fiscal cliff? i guess the democrats do. they have the senate and the president and a lot of the mainstream media. that's where their loyalties are. people at low income levels would be hit hard by the fiscal cliff. i'm not one of the people who jump all over john boehner. i thought he was making a good- faith offer. it was flatly rejected. part of this is about revenue. a huge part is budget cuts and reductions. this is something erskine bowles

has been emphasizing. you have to make substantial cuts. host: the headlines in the papers this morning talk about the fiscal cliff negotiations and should the speaker retain his leadership. do you think he should? guest: i do not know. this has hurt him, for sure. you could argue there are more compelling person. host: like who? guest: the guy that used to work for me, paul ryan, is a very well spoken young man. there are other people. tim scott, congressman from south carolina.

but there are others. i was saying on my radio show we have a strong bench. the bench is now in the field. those guys are out there. bobby jindal and scott walker susana martinez. new kind of republicans. they understand the modern world a little better. there are lots of candidates. who the speaker is matters less than the party getting back to its core message. host: return to gun control on twitter. guest: all of our wars, no?

wincsince when? be.ldn't t host: making the point about guns in america. guest: guns are lethal weapons. article in "the atlantic" magazine. the concealed carry permit allows people to carry guns. people have concealed carry permits are very careful with their guns. the arrest rate for people with concealed carry permits is lower than the arrest rate for police officers. they do not abuse the privilege

of carrying a gun. there is a notion that the gun is a source of corruption and somehow contaminates the owner. analogy --g as an you put on the ring and it weakens you. some believe having a gun corrupt you. people who own guns are not corrupt and sometimes our best citizens. can you heard somebody with a gun -- can you heard somebody with a gun -- can you hurt somebody with a gun? sure, you can. host: this on twitter from

smileyt22. >> i found that interesting from the nra. i went up to new york to time warner with senator lieberman and delored tucker. we were kind of a mod squad delegate. we went to talk about some of the more violent music and cultural products they were putting out. "these products cannot help." they greeted us and said, "i love the book of virtues." the research has been done. there may be a lot of cost to people spending all the time watching violent video games,

there does not appear to be a link between that and violence. you find that the perpetrator has had some history where this man spent his time in a basement watching hour after help.nd a cait cannot you are dealing with the effect of these games on a certain kind of mind. one aspect of this is how to get some kind of hold on the non- adjudicated mentally ill who have serious problems. it looks like this young man had pretty serious problems. his mother was about to have them committed and takeover

conservatorship. maybe we don't make it easy enough in certain cases. >> ray in texas. thank you for waiting. caller: good morning. you are a republican. guest: i was a democrat for 25 years. caller: you as a republican or you have been with the republicans and democrats. do you think it would be better -- the% is on the rich will go to 38%. guest: 38.6%. caller: i have studied this for

quite awhile. what if democrats and republicans were to drop a half% or 1% and raise the wage bar on wages on the american society to 12 bucks an hour and close everything that comes into this country from other countries so we can build and make our own stuff. host: as get some reaction. guest: i am for free trade. sometimes it helps and sometimes it hurts. when other countries are playing fast and loose, we have to fight back. mitt romney talked a lot about that during the campaign.

i supported president clinton on nafta and i think we were right to do so. the minimum wage is a tough issue. we often see people going to part-time work and other kind of work so that we don't have to pay the full wage. we see a lot of employees looking at the implementation of obamacare, the new health care law, and sang a better not have 50 employees or i will pay the penalty rather than pay this enormous amount. that will be shaking out this year and next year and we will see what people think of this program. host: this from "the wall street journal."

guest: it is best to leave these at the local level. those are the markets that are most sensitive. they will pay more and get better workers. host: we will be turning that topic into a question for our viewers and our last half an hour this morning. whether or not congress should increase the minimum wage. rick in tennessee is on the air with bill bennett. caller: thank you. good morning. i would like to read a paragraph. host: how long is it? summarize it for us. caller: the obama administration letcongress both have

security system lapse for the school system. it was taken out of the budget to protect our schools. host: bill bennett? guest: i had that job, secretary of education. i did a survey and ask what the best program was? the answer was the block grant program. we get the money from the states and send back to the states. ou cannot make stchools better from washington. i think it needs to be a local decision about school security and how you handle it.

somebody call my radio show and said they didn't want to go within 1,000 yards of any school. that's what the perpetrators would like. in texas, every teacher is armed. this is a serious point. with the exception of the gabrielle giffords slaughter, almost all these mass killings have taken place in places that are gun-free. they do not go to police stations or quantico where they will be met with strong resistance. they go to places where there are mostly women and children, schools. two men in the building. little children and no one armed.

shouldn't people if they think they makes sense be given a fighting chance and i say yes. host: charles schumer is quoted here. guest: well, he may or may not if he is well trained and is alerted to it. this has happened in history. we have cases in mississippi where a guy was disarmed by somebody who knew what they were doing. the guy loads up and comes tin. a thoughtful officer who knows how to handle a gun may do better than some deranged teenager that is coming in on a spree. we have a number of cases that are cited.

it is a fighting chance. people talk about the police. these tragedies -- these catastrophes, slaughters. you turn on the tv and there are 100 cops in full gear. it is all over. everybody is dead. then we have a week of teddy bears and candles. understandable reactions. "let's not keep doing this stuff after the fact." we have a lot of guns and we have some nut cases. people should be able to make their own decisions.

an armed security person and you have a chance, a fighting chance. host: william in north carolina. caller: yeah. i am a 65-year-old white male living in the south. i have lived here all my life. i can remember when the south was low in economics. i can remember when the south, you know -- we had our racial problems. we were segregated. i can remember in the south whenever we were a fundamentalist culture. i have seen over the years things change. i know i have tended to be a

pragmatist, a democratic humanist, and that is a democrat with a small d. you think things do not change but they do. we have -- in what is changing. it just evolves. i want to put a warning from the view.asthumanistic >> i talked in mississippi. -- i taught in mississippi. james carville has an analysis of this gentleman in the south. white males in the south. the country has changed on this.

probably the greatest transformation in the country is a state like south carolina. countries can progress. host: what does it mean for politics? guest: we have serious disagreements about things like budgets and other matters. stille grown up and we're the envy of the world in terms of equality. the world still follows the united states. host: this is from boring filecler. guest: this party was founded by abraham lincoln. i have not seen the lincoln movie. it is a good time for that movie.

this country was founded on -- slavery and polygamy. a strong government but a limited government. a strong foreign policy and a respect for traditional values while open to the advances. those are three fundamental principles. many americans feel it is pressing hardest is government and the reach of government. this is a balancing act. i think we can win people's hearts. we are doing fine at the local level. we're doing very well.

if people want to look at republican governance and democrat governance, look at the states. but the fiscal record and the balanced budget and conditions. they're pretty good case can be made. host: mike from maryland. caller: i have fault you through the years. -- i have followed you through the years. evangelical persons and a home school family. i know do not written some curriculum in that area. i agree with you. the democrats have market certain ideas better even though their policies do not prove our. t.

obama has grown the government by 25% over the last four years. a compassionate government is a huge fallacy. the money doesn't get to where people in need get to it. the education department, i'm not sure why we have a secretary of education. if i were obama, i would reduce the federal government and get rid of certain departments. guest: good luck trying. one senator wanted a promised not to abolish the department before i was confirmed.

i said, "i did not have to have this job." "i don't have the votes for this anyway." that is not going to happen. i agree with the secretary of education on a lot of things. i know arne duncan. he has also taken on the unions. that made some of us a little happier. those are a lot of wonderful teachers in this country. i don't think you can get rid of that department. you want some serious efforts to hold back. erskine bowles has talked about this. we cannot keep spending at the

current levels. the automatic cuts and what they do to the defense department. leon panetta said they would be devastating. we are talking about national security. we live in a dangerous world. if you cut your defense ability by 50%, this is catastrophic. host: from twitter, jody. know there is any principle detection. there are lawsuits for misuse of a weapon. there are a lot of state laws. connecticut had about the toughest laws possible.

connecticut had very tough laws . apparently the killer was turned down to buy a rifle because of the background checked. his mother had an arsenal at home. people should be liable if they miss use a weapon. people have these concealed carry weapons. host: democratic caller. caller: i have a couple things here. the fact is that the weapons tingsin the school shoo were bought legally. i have nothing against the so- called assault weapons.

i am against the 30-round c lips. it could take two-hand acation instead of just -- two-hand action instead of just one. the amount of recoil is controlled by the power that is put through the shell from the high velocity power. i think there's some things there. even the senator from "meet the press" said there should have been some way to interrupt the shooter. host: we got your point. guest: in this article that i recommend to everybody, he comes

out for restrictions in gun shows and the winning period, background checks, etc. these things make sense. you have about 300 million guns floating around in america. it is not about getting rid of the guns that are out there already. somebody said we should round up all the guns. i do not think that is a likely scenario. all that is heartbreaking and in enraging. in rag the principal lunges at this guy. these brave, good, noble women

trying to do what they can. give her a chance. give for a handgun. he thinks he's a big hot shot with all these weapons. there is a case when these guys are confronted with somebody with a weapon. these are not brave men. how can you be brave and shoot 6-year-old and 7-year-olds. some of these guys make back off if confronted with a weapon. at least you have a chance. what can you do? university advice would be laughable if the wasn't so horrible. play dead. for your pencils and laptop --

throw your pencils and laptop at him. if you're in a school and someone came in with a weapon, whenever your odds, would you prefer to have a gun or not? i think a lot of people would say, "give me a fighting chance ." caller: mayor christmas to you guys. guest: merry christmas. caller: please let me finish. mr. bennett was talking about bombing the schools. i do not think that would work -- mr. bennett was talking about schools.ing the

they are not afraid. these people have a death wish. there was a statistic about england. there were 35 murders and we had 12,000. there is something not right. i think we should look into that. guest: one guy that was discouraged in going to a school when into a mall. this was the oregon case. he pointed his gun at the shooter as he paused to reload and that stopped him. the guy shot himself. he went to a mall. the would-be killer decides a school is a high-risk

proposition and he might go someplace else or not doing at all. host: 1 last caller. caller: i have heard different numbers to put police officers in schools. there is a police officer where i live at all of the schools. i live here in georgia. it is not a metropolitan area by no means. it is a small town. we have police officers at the school. we have 30 schools. i do not think it is costing the federal government a thing. we have not had anything happen. i believe somebody who is armed

at the school with the proper training -- host: ok. guest: suppose you had more parents around. we had a shooter here in d.c. they were going to cancel a football game. i said why don't we have the dads just ring the field? a show of solidarity. we're here and you cannot walk in here. you can have volunteers haven't a presence in the school and i might have some effect. these are sad and terrible things to be talking about. this is our history as a people. the headline two days after the slaughter was the massacre of the innocents.

that was the headline in "the new york post." herod was worried about the would-be king silly odder the death of all these children -- so he ordered the death of all these children. it is christmas eve. let's look to that. host: bill bennett, former education secretary, thank you very much. guest: my pleasure. host: we will talk about politics with clarence page. we'll be right back.

[video clip] >> the idea and it was a conflation appalled 6. the crater of the show is a conservative -- the creator of the show is a conservative. there was no agenda. that somehow we were the midwife to a public policy was absurd. it is absurd. if are content was affecting the behavior of interrogators in the field, even if the was .05%, there was a systemic problem, for sure.

i suggested we try to intervene. disabuse them that this is a television show. the fact that "24" became the political football was a viable thing. >> how movies and television betray politics and policy making, followed by george will on the link between religion and politics. and james taylor on c-span. careening intof places ♪ >> what is the most important issue president obama should continue? >> make a short message. >> your chance to win the grand

prize of $5,000. the deadline is january 18. >> "washington journal" continues. >host: we are back with clarence page. guest: glad to be back. .ost: let's do a little recap the re-election of president obama. the debates over the economy. guest: it is about as fractious as it could be. washington is a divided city. the fiscal cliff -- i believe

both sides know what to do. it is going to be painful. either raise taxes or cut spending. both need to be done. our taxes are going to go up. some good programs will be cut automatically on january 1 if they do not come up with an agreement. that was designed by the politicians to deal with the fiscal problems. it reminds me of the old "national lampoon" comfort that if you don't buy this magazine, we will shoot this dog. save us from ourselves or help us save us from ourselves. it didn't work.

they have about a week to go. i suspect they will kick the can down the road. a short-term way to get is passed the immediate collapse of what is stalling certain cuts. maybe unemployment benefits, that kind of thing. i think there will give a short- term answer. host: a lot of headlines are about the republicans and their caucus. what about democrats? are they at fault as well? "we do not want medicare to be touched." the democrats see have put their feet down and said, "we will not do anything."

the republican party is divided. i have not seen of this divided since the 1960's. barry goldwater did not win more than half a dozen states. jimmy carter came in after watergate. one reagan brought them together. we have not have that kind of unity cents. there was the george mcgovern to buckle and with walter mondale -- the debacle with walter mondale. bill clinton against newt gingrich. they went to two government

shutdowns. the polls blame the republicans. host: president obama job approval rating is 56%. does he have political capital in these negotiations and should he used it? guest: they had a grand bargain before, john boehner thought he did and his caucus was too divided to push it through. these problems do require some pain. when politicians have to exact some pain, they wait to the last minute and a turn and say, "i try to save your social security but you saw what

happened." both sides do that. president obama has a political capital. it is like money -- how do you spend it? he can spend it on helping our schools. he can spend it with regard to our affairs in the middle east. those are tough questions to answer. my priority is always education and our long term problems. i'm not a deficit hawk. people on both sides do bothwell. i don't understand the fuss about raising the age

qualification for social security are medicare. and plead with the caps -- simply lift the caps. franklin roosevelt to not want to be called a socialist. if we just lived in those caps, we would delay -- i can remember the exact numbers. for several decades, anyway. i think that would be less painful than raising the qualified age. medicare is the toughest because of health care costs have been skyrocketing. our country's health care cost is rising faster than any other industrial nation.

we don't have much coronation. obamacare had to be cobbled together to appease everybody. we have it and we should be focusing on ways to make our health care more efficient and i think we will. these are all tough problems but they need to be handled. being president is like playing three-dimensional chess. maybe four dimensions. caller: thank you, c-span. is the last year, didn't the president give over $1 trillion in cuts? the caller blamed him for the cuts. what is going on now -- isn't the republicans refusing to

raise the taxes on the top 2%? guest: that certainly is a sticking point right now and i think it is a key one that prevents us from moving further. republicans do want to prevent any tax cuts including the top want to see some cuts to the entitlement programs and has got caught up in saved in the tax cuts for the rich. that is such a sticky issue in itself. it is hard to keep track of all the proposals and what has been done. the problem boils down to who is going to feel the pain and how

much. host: this on twitter from foolishobama. guest: liberals do have the upper hand, don't thety? y? rather remarkable. if the democrats don't do anything, you have across-the- board defense cuts. you get an end to the bush- era tax cuts. democrats have an advantage. a lot of programs that people need. unemployment insurance extension. many programs across the board where people who need help would be hurt. democrats do not want that to

happen. is is a make or break time for the tea party. the tea party is the right wing of the republican party and we have not heard much from them. "where is the tea party?" where are their rallies and their signs. this is a problem for moderate republicans. i have found some. you have to look hard. when the time comes to sit down and do the math on these problems, we are not seeing the extremists. host: the tea party largely silent on the fiscal cliff.

host: "we feel we of more power on the state level." guest: you do have more power at the state and local level. you have the author, a very good but. 60% of the tea party folks are christian evangelicals. the others are ron paul libertarians and the fair tax people and you mix them all together. when they vote, they vote conservative republican. they need to be at the table. we need to talk about it.

does the country want a flat tax? "we all like john boehner." i grew up and john boehner's district in ohio. he is a very practical man. he is a deal maker. he wants to sit down at the table and come up with a solution. he is being pressured by the tea party. host: maverick on twitter says -- host: what do you think? guest: that sounds strange to me. host: congress needs to do something at this point.

is he remove himself from the equation? guest: he is saying, "here's my offer." i think john boehner is doing that. he didn't have the votes he needed. host: republican senator thinks the president wants to go off the fiscal cliff. guest: i said earlier myself. in terms of who gets hurt the most, i think it's clear the republicans can be hurt the most. they put themselves in that situation. let's go offto say the fiscal cliff. unemployment or other benefits,

veterans benefits, etc. it would be cynical to say let's sacrifice those folks to win a political point. i'm not saying democrats want to do that. host: let's hear from the republican in indiana. caller: hi. i have a comment and a question. if they had police officers driving route near schools before the start and when they release, they should have an alarm system on every school. so as soon as the window broke, the alarm would have triggered. we know the 1% are not doing enough. when is it not fair on the other side of the equation?

a ward of the state, now free health care. when does it-- stop? guest: everybody has their definition of fairness. we're always at shellac debates sense.own to dollars and cent how do you rate whether somebody is deserving poor or undeserving poor. we talk about welfare payments. they had dwindled down to virtually nothing. we have improved the welfare to work program so people who can work are required to.

we have the numbers of what we spend on will recall welfare or temporary assistance to needy families. this is a small part of the budget compared to the big items which are social security, medicare, medicaid, and defense spending. medicaid is the smallest of those four. for medicaid payments go towards nursing homes. reagan talk about welfare. that is an easy scapegoat for the fiscal problems. welfare is a small challenge fiscally compared to these other big ones.

host: robert from the kentucky. caller: good morning. i have had the pleasure speaking to you on bet. guest: back when bet had a public affairs commitment. caller: i spoke to you and your wife. page. the question, mr. i grew up in an inner city and was educated but i still shows the path of gang activity. i got out and did some good things before i move to henderson, kentucky. there were armed guards and bomb drills when i grew up.

you cannot get on the campus unless you're cleared by security. these types of incidents maybe not enmasse, but killing and violence has always been prevalent in the black and hispanic communities. if this had not happened in a community that received so much attention, would it have not been swept under the rug and not much attention paid to it had been a black situation. "well this is just the norm." guest: i'm glad you brought that up. an old mentor said news is what happens when things don't go the way they are supposed to.

the planes that takeoff and land safely every day is not news. school violence in inner city communities is not news like and 7-e against young 6- year-old children in a prosperous community. that is what makes this story so shocking. president obama said this was the fourth service he went to speak to after great mass shooting. how many have we had since columbine? this one grabbed everybody. a third of our public schools have armed guards. there in high crime areas and inner city schools with metal detectors. we got used to it that we forget

we have armed guards. it was suggested by the head of the nra. it's going to cost. the average is $60,000 a year for an armed guard, according to "the washington post.' do we want to pay it? my son is not school-age now. how do you say no? you are worried about your kids all day long and everybody is after this connecticut situation. we need to talk about this for all kids and families. host: this is the headline from "the baltimore sun."

guest: i hope so. i have criticized the president after these shootings. that is the position of the nra. after tucson, we should have banned these oversized magazines. my good friend bill bennett, talking about the idea of teachers rushing at a shooter, there was a case where jared loughner was brought down by bystanders. he went to change magazines and they pinned him down. that's why he's in custody today. i believe it was 17-round clips. i believe that's how many people

he shot, including congresswoman giffords. he put 17 more rounds into his weapon, but people don't on him. what if he had only had a five- round magazine? how different that story would have been. the head of the nra loved to draw these scenarios of what might happen with this and that. columbine, they had an armed guard. you can go on the web to see the after action report of the columbine massacre. the armed guard got into a shootout with one of the boys, dylan klebold, and failed to stop him before the police came. even though he had an armed guard, his aim was not good enough to stop him from killing more people before the police

arrived. there are many scenarios people have on both sides. there are ways we can make our schools safer an op-. we need to talk about all of them. host: over this weekend we had an author who wrote a book called "columbine: lessons learned." c-span.org for our viewers. guest: yes, that's why this is big news, because it is so rare. we have gotten so unused to the violence. in chicago we had a wave of youth homicides. have seen this happen every 10 or 15 years in chicago. all across the country, every big city has a turn of being the homicide capital. washington d.c. went through

that in the late-1980s, the early 1990's. there are different theories about why homicide rates go up he. you can find arguments against each one of them. the fact is this is an anomaly. we said that when i was in high school, john kennedy was assassinated, and then we had to build or three more assassination attempts over the next few years. -- two or three more. dr. king, george wallace. charles whitman went up into an texas power at the university of texas and opened fire on people with a sniper rifle. that was an anomaly. look at how many more times we've seen that since then, in the school shootings. i hope this is an anomaly, that we don't see more grade school getting shot up, but we need to pay attention. host: a democrat on the line in

california, mike. caller: i enjoy watching europeyou. republicans are beholden to grover norquist instead of the american people. is grover norquist still relevant today? it seems the republicans are doing whatever they can to make sure the wealthiest americans don't get tax breaks. they should do what's good for the american people. they are afraid if they go against the pledge that they made to grover norquist, that grover norquist will do whatever he can to make sure these republicans lose their seats. thank you. guest: thanks for your call. i know grover norquist and consider him a friend. we don't agree on much politically, but that is washington. you don't let politics come in friends. it amuses me that he has become the person for the left like

george soros has been for the right. grover norquist is a symbol. why do people listened to him? because he raises money. if you go out and raise money for your particular party or candidate or cause, people will give you a brand new respect as well. he knows how to raise money and is a very good -- very good at -- icity and raising its co promoting his cause. so that gives you assert amount of clout and influence with powerful people who depend on campaign donations. the fact is it is not grover norquist. there is an obligation that conservatives have -- that republicans have to take care of

the folks who sent them, just like democrats are beholden sometimes organized labor in the way of school reform, which is another conversation. i have enough teachers in my family that when i start complaining about teachers' union -- we have some great topics at thanksgiving. it's a very real system of legal bribery, but the campaign donations system we have that gives people like grover a disproportionate amount of clout. host: on twitter -- guest: i guess they are referring to earmarks. we don't have earmarks like we used to. that has inhibited his ability to deal on the floor away past speakers have. i think the tea party is a different animal. they have gotten so much clout

at grassroots. there are so many tea party members in that part of the republican caucus who refused to play by the old rules, who say i am not here to get reelected, i am here to reduce the size of government and get rid of cutbacks. former senator alan simpson was quoting someone else and he said a zealot is someone who redoubles their efforts after their original purpose has been forgotten. this is what the tea party reminds me of. in their zeal to reduce the size of government, they will bring the government to a halt, causing more damage. that is what john boehner is dealing with.

guest: because it's the american way. you can go back to the civil war for the income-tax rates to help the war effort. in the era of teddy roosevelt we had progressives giving a flat tax. they tried to flatten out social security tax. as a result, we are worried about the long-term solvency of social security. those have to be paid. it is true that the wealthy have invested more, but it is also true that those who are

working minimum-wage have invested a lot too. they work hard. having been someone who worked minimum wage to get myself trichology, i held a variety of jobs, i resent the notion that somehow i am not putting in my fair share. these are all things debated. if you like a flat tax, whatever real debate about it. host: a headline in the wall street journal -- we will talk to our viewers in the last half hour to get their take on that. richard in prairie grove, arkansas, independent. caller: clarence, i have a question. do you value your first amendment?

the second amendment was not put in place so we could go out and hunt squirrels. it's there for a reason, to protect us from an overbearing government, a king george, that would take away our rights, and the constitution. it is there to protect all the rights. make no mistake about it, you diminish the second a amendment, the first amendment is next. thank you. guest: your welcome. if you expect me to give a speech denouncing the second amendment, you are not calling to hear it. the second amendment was not written in order to -- or the people to rise up against their government. quite the opposite. it was written so the people would be able to raise a militia to protect the government, back in those days. this is a worthwhile debate which is ongoing, as we of seen

in recent supreme court decision on the second amendment. i will not get into a legal seminar, but the second amendment does not answer all of our questions in regard to automatic versus semiautomatics , versus a single shot weapons. and what level of weapons people should be allowed to keep under their homes under what conditions. gun owners who i know who are in or out of the nra, most of them see a lot of good common sense gun reforms that can be made, background checks. almost everyone agrees we need proper background checks to keep guns out of the hands of people known to have particular mental problems or criminal backgrounds or possibly terror suspects

lists. the nra is opposed to all this. we should have limits on sizes of magazine sales. the nra opposes that. there are so many common sense gun reforms -- and i'm writing about this for a call tomorrow -- that we already have a national consensus, in judging by the polls. the nra is against even modest reforms and in a way that confirmed the idea that they have turned from a grass-roots organization into a mouthpiece for the gun industry. let's be honest. their spokesman spoke very well for the gun industry's position, saying we need to put more guns out there. whatever real debate. host: bob is a republican caller. caller: merry christmas. i was going to comment on the

fairness of taxing, but i have a couple quick points about the gun problem. if that mother had licked, of the shooter, she would've been in violation of not providing a trigger locks and keeping the guns locked up in a safe. there are laws that she should of been arrested for. >guest: she should have obeid them. caller: the earlier caller comparing england with america, and there's a big difference in the gun problem, america is a movie, tv, and video-game society. over theself puts -- weekend isometry movies with massive spent bullets on the floor. crazy movies out there. that does not mean everybody will go out there and commit

those crimes. the common denominator of all these people who have committed the crimes in the last year-and- a-half or so were mentally deficient people on prozac, zoloft, and other sorts. if you watched the advertisers on tv every night, all those drugs, in the disclaimers the right that it causes suicidal thoughts. guest: yes, back to his question, first of all, england and the rest of the world have movies and video games, too. hollywood is the second-most important industry in the united states. it is not just the media or entertainment media causing the problem. i favor reducing the number of guns that are available out there. that is a real problem.

in england, where you don't have that many guns available, there are fewer gun accidents and shootings. there is no panacea that is going to solve all aren't social problems. a gun is just a gun. they're just tools for either good or for mayhem. we need to reduce the number of guns out there. those confiscations that to occur after a crime help to produce guns out there, but there's a big turnover of new guns coming onto the streets. and so, if we could slow down that flow of guns on to the streets, we could do something right there to help alleviate the problem. of law-in favor abiding citizens to have their guns confiscated or overnight outlawing guns across the

country. i don't think the votes are there for that to happen either. host: elizabeth in birmingham, democrat -- olivia. caller: good morning, greta. anybody in america, any country in the world that was not touched about those babies two weeks ago, they need their heads examined. that was heartbreaking. i am a childless woman, but to just kill babies. the republicans, some of them, this nra, you cannot say anything against gun control? come on. those were babies. i cried for over three days. guest: we all did.

caller: yes, john boehner and republicans, you all did win, but the democrats gained more seats in the house. and president. won all the swing states except for one. he barely lost north carolina. the only reason republicans kept their districts is because of gerrymandering and what they did in their districts so they could hold on to those district. they did that in here in alabama and all across the country. that's the way they kept the house. otherwise the democrats would of taken over the house. guest: she's right. democrats gerrymandered tii,. -- gerrymandered too. in illinois one-man gerrymandered several republicans out of their jobs.

while democrats have the upper hand this time around, they cannot get comfortable. midterm elections tend to swing towards more older and more populist. democrats could lose seats in the house and senate this next time around. the real problem i see for our government system right now is that we have -- are we going to have this kind of a pendulum swing every two years where you have either a tea party conservative or barack obama liberals running things and you wind up with gridlock? or are we going to have more voices of moderation out there who know how to sit down together and get things done? right now the voices of moderation are an endangered species in washington. host: now to an independent caller in rhode island. you are on the air with a syndicated columnist clarence

page. caller: i greatly enjoyed your participation on the kauffman group. guest: thank you very much. we are about to have a year-end event. thank you. caller: i would like to challenge one of your remarks about education. if you look at the constitution, the way the founding fathers put it into being, you will find that there was nothing in there about youth education at, or at least the matter in which it was to be administered. i think there was a very good purpose for that, mainly that

the federal government really should not be governing youth education. you have your different communities in the united states and they have different needs in each of the communities. some need more education on farming. some need it on business. others, so on down the line. i would suggest that we get rid of the department of education and let the individual communities handle their educational challenges. guest: that was brought up in the last show with bill bennett, former secretary of education. he knows more about the

education department and i do. ronald reagan had promised to get rid of that department, but most americans want to see the federal government involved to some extent. they see education as being important enough as an issue. even though 85% or more of school funding and decisions are made at the state and local level, as i agree they should be, most folks want to have some help from the federal parliament as well, especially when it is so important for future generations and for the future of our country. we want to make sure we have at least a four, a standard so kids can at least read their own diploma when they leave school. host: john in white plains, new york, democrat. caller: good morning. i want to make a comment. violence is imbedded in the nature of our society. the threat of violence is palpable.

it becomes manifest in architecture with the walls of financial institutions in forming most of us we are nothing. the press to cover moving things that not only enhance life but sustained it. in housing and employment there is violence. we are the only species that food and shelter are dream. guest: we are the only species able to bands together in groups of larger than 18, because we have civilization. human beings developed that system for living together in large diverse populations and organizing themselves. sometimes that order seems to be breaking down, like on capitol hill these days. i do have hopes for the species. host: dennis in miami, republican caller. you are our last caller. caller: i enjoy seeing you on

the mclaughlin group. guest: thank you. caller: i have a few questions. the term loopholes is getting bandied about quite a bit now. in my opinion, all polls are tax deductions, but not all tax deductions are loopholes. a poll is a misuse of an intended deduction and using its in a way in which it was never intended. you agree? guest: i think local is a term that describes a tax advantage that i cannot get or you-- cannot get. -- loophole is a term. caller: we hear of republicans as broadening the tax base. by the pepco word for ge people

-- i think that is code for people who are not paying anything now to start paying something. guest: 47% of the people don't pay income tax, but they do pay a other things. there's something called the earned income tax credit for that began in the ford administration. ronald reagan expanded its and bill clinton expanded further. an income-tax credits, low- income workers get a tax advantage to help you and your family, help keep you off welfare, social benefits you more to work and be on welfare. that was a virgin. mor -- that was a virtue. now people are getting up and arms about it saying half the

people don't pay taxes. host: clarence page, a prediction, what happens with eight days remaining before the fiscal cliff? guest: i was optimistic about them beating the deadline. i'm not that optimistic anymore. there are ways to weasel around the deadline with the least amount of pain in the short term and fix the problem down the road, at least two or three months or something like that. i hope i'm wrong. i hope they do come to their senses and show how well they can reason together on or about january 1. we will see. host: thank you for talking to our viewers. we will take a short break. we will dig into this headline when we come back -- we will be right back. >> ♪

[video clip] >> there are about a dozen buildings around world that are by far the the most important places of the internet. they are the places where more networks of the internet connect to each other than anywhere else. they're mostly in places you expect, new york, london, frankfurt, tokyo, with a couple interesting outliers. places like aspirin, virginia, and incorporated the suburbs not far from dulles airport. if you ask the network engineers that i spent time with what are the capitals of the internet, include ashburn.ay londo those are the hot spots on the internet. looking for the internet

in the real world, tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span2. [video clip] >> i like a variety of the programs on c-span and the debates. i like to catch those when they are available on c-span. i do watch the call-in programs as well to get the various positions from republicans, independents, democrats, to see what folks are thinking about a country. i think it's fair and impartial. full spectrum of what the political scene is. i like the coverage. >> dennis m. dorsey watches c- span on comcast. c-span, created in 1979, brought to you as a public service by your television provider.

>> i think there was no idea -- and it was promoted in certain articles and was a conflation of politics, because the creator of the show was a conservative. the staff was from the far left to the far right. but there was no agenda. the idea that there was an agenda, that we were somehow a midwife to public policy on interrogation, was observed. it is absurd, which is not to say that if there was initial, if our content was affecting the behavior of interrogators in the field, even if it was zero. -- was 0.04%.

this is a television show. the fact that "24" became a political football that it became for a while was a very valuable thing. >> tonight at 8:00 on c-span, how movies and television portrait politics and policy making, followed a 9:20, the historical link between a religion and politics. at 10:50, james taylor, singer and songwriter, on c-span. >> ♪ >> washington journal continues. host: we're back for the last part of today's washington journal. whether or not congress that should raise the minimum wage. here's the wall street journal this morning with their story.

the economists said a sizable majority of studies there of you give a relatively consistent, although not always --

a piece refers to george miller, the top democrat on the house work force committee. he, along with tom harkin, are looking at legislation that they're going to introduce next year to raise the federal hourly minimum wage to $9.80.

so we want to get your take on this. should congress raise the minimum wage? 202-585-3882 for all others. you can send us a tweet for facebook post or an e-mail. we will look at facebook comments throughout the next 30 minutes. we want to get your take your phone calls on this as well. it says --

we heard it from bill bennett, and says minimum wage increases cause employers to and then decrease hours for the workers. david in bnorth carolina, a democrat. caller: i think a minimum wages part of the economic solutions. you have to raise it for people to have more disposable income. host: because of consumers' driving the economy? caller: right. if people don't have money to spend on anything, people are not making anything. host: bill bennett said earlier

today the should be in a state and local decision. in the wall street journal it says that states are moving, but it depends on the state's economy whether or not they increase the minimum wage. caller: partly, he's right. but sometimes the federal government has to push the states along to keep up. host: catalina is a republican caller. -- kathleen. caller: the federal government hastoo involved. we had a small business. many people don't realize that when we hire young workers, especially kids that are still in school, they cost us sometimes three times what we were paying them, because we had them.ain no. host: these young kids cost

three times of what you paid because you train them and then they left? caller: no. they usually left when they graduated high school, because it went off to college or on to something else. while they were working for us, people forget that the workers we had we were paying well above, we have to take time to train these people. that is a cost that is never to figure into the calculation. they figure you are only paying $5 an hour, but we are paying $15 an hour for someone a few hours to train the person to do the job. that should be considered. i would also like to see the trade schools [indiscernible] we had many young people who

used to go to school half a day and learn things. we should take a hard look at trade schools for our young people who are not college material and probably never will be. i think we need more young people with a trade rather than just worrying about a degree. host: what was your business? caller: we had a motorcycle business. host: how long did it take to train one employee? caller: it depended on the employee, how faithfully came to work, a number of things. it also depended on whether we were breaking down the crates, not take muchd training. but in the bikes together,

we used to have to have a seasoned person overseeing them. host: we are talking about whether congress should raise the minimum wage. if your interested in what your state minimum-wage is, go to minimumwage,com. a dozen states and cities will raise their minimum wage on january 1 and there's a move in congress to raise the federal minimum wage and several states have pending legislation. mark is an independent caller in chico, california. caller: i think it should be raised, but i think we have to get back to -- it's not going to do a whole lot of good until we stop paying companies and corporations to export jobs overseas. we are losing so many jobs because of being able to export jobs, there is hardly any net

benefit to it. if we start paying them to bring jobs back to america, then it would make a big difference. in california, the minimum wage stays put. it should be 15. it's only sensible that corporations are making so much money -- i think they made $13 trillion this last quarter and they are just taking its overseas. they don't care about us anymore. they just take jobs overseas. host: on facebook --

johnny in woodbridge, virginia, a democrat. good morning. caller: hi. small business, the panacea of the whole world. small business is the reason that the middle class stopped growing. they are the main reason. small-business wants tax breaks. if i give my workers a pay raise, i will have to fire half of them. that is crazy. it is just like the argument over gun control. they never say a well-organized militia, army, air force,

marines. that's what the constitution says. it does not say a a black kid can go out there and buy a million guns. -- it does not say a blockheadn go out there and buy a million guns. host: our next caller from pennsylvania. caller: it seems like mexican immigrants or coming into work the farm jobs, minimum wage. basically, they're all going back to mexico now because the farmers cannot afford to hire. when you take those people out of our economy, they are not buying stuff from our economy, they're not buying at grocery stores, they're not buying housing, that kind of thing. so when you raise the minimum wage, it affects our whole

economy. people cannot hire as much or by as much. some people are getting more money and other people are not getting any money. so it is a big question. just like obamacare, they mandated people to buy insurance for their employees, and people are laying off or cutting their hours. host: what about the argument that consumer spending drives our economy and the world economy and u.s. consumer spending drives the world economy, it makes up a large percentage of gdp? caller: you are always taking money from someone to give to someone else. that's the problem. host: on twitter --

vince in baltimore, independent. caller: i was just trying to look at the piece this morning about the increase. i'm looking at the numbers for the states trying to increase their minimum wage. in maryland, that would be enough to support you in a shelter. you literally could not get any kind of frontal. you could not get any kind of rental. it is people wanting zero risk in their hiring prospects. they don't have that same kind of guarantee when they buy new robotic equipment, when they work anti-collective bargaining for the benefit of their bottom line at the expense of having workers.

regardless of incretion of the u.s. you are in, if you don't have a situation where you have more people in the workplace, you will find -- in baltimore, we have a lot of crime and a lot of drugs. when they have no prospects, things can get desperate. i think the, as we look at the fiscal cliff and all these things merging together, i think this is a real consideration, that we need to increase minimum wage across the board, because it's better for our society, total societal costs, if we have more people working. host: we told you about the headlines earlier this morning, but if you are just joining us, the front page of the new york times has -- the front page of the washington

post has -- the front page of the washington times has -- and here's a story in the new york times this morning -- his blood alcohol content was 0.11%. the legal limit in virginia is 0.08%.

his 61 and as a january 4 court date. those are some of the headlines this morning. new york, democratic caller, finishing out today's washington journal, talking about whether congress should raise the minimum wage. caller: how are ya? the price of living is different in other states. the minimum wage in new york is $7.25, i think. i cannot imagine another state having a higher cost of living than new york. los angeles, their minimum wage

is $8, i think. i've lived in both states. seattle, these big expensive cities have the lowest minimum wage. you go to other states where living expenses are a little lower and they have a minimum wage, so i think congress needs to move minimum wage a little higher. it is a comparison between living expenses and that states minimum-wage is completely ridiculous. host: brian in connecticut, republican caller. caller: good morning. i guess my feeling on this is i don't think there's any place for the federal government to mandate to private businesses to increase the minimum wage. i think that, along with the added cost of the new taxes with

obamacare, companies are already having to and did older books around. they are already cutting hours to get people under 30 hours. it does not add anything, if anything -- i don't think minimum-wage was never supposed to be -- the idea of getting your first job at minimum wage, you were supposed to get that and then move on to a better job. by raising the minimum wage, the federal government's idea is that is going to be your career. i think that is their whole feeling. i don't get it. i think they should stay out of it. if states want to do it, but it's up to them. if their economies can absorb that. in the end, it will hurt businesses. they will hire less people. host: what the you think about

this on twitter? -- caller: i am not buying that. i was a member of two or three unions. unions are out for themselves. that's a claim they make. it does not hold water with me. i don't think it holds water in many places. it's a good line, but i don't think it's reality. host: we will keep talking about this for about 10 minutes. all white and paper this morning has ---- a newspaper in hawaii --

there you can see some video from that funeral service. the new york times reports this morning about the funeral service -- mr. dole was using his wheelchair -- should congress raise the minimum wage? in tennessee, democratic caller. caller: hi./

the people who complain about raising the minimum wage are the same people who complain about how there are more people on food stamps and government assistance and complain about them being in the 47%. you cannot have it both ways. host: dwight in columbus, ohio, independent caller. caller: thanks for taking my call. host: we are listening. caller: i want to praise you for reading. we live in a country where literacy rates are on the trajectory downwards. what the caller said before, if you don't want people tos suck off the rest of the economy, you should raise wages and living wage. if you look at a party rates in america, we are constantly coming to a situation [indiscernible].

this is the reality we are living in. one last thing, if you or to preclude congress members from their wages, and we would not have a fiscal cliff. before they went on their brakes and have their holiday, if you precluded if their compensation company would not have the fiscal cliff. they would have dealt with it before they left. host: some more economic headlines. here's the "washington times" -- so that some consumer news this morning. also, wall street journal has --

and this headline in the wall street journal -- ken in huntington, new york, republican caller. the minimum wage, should be increased by congress? caller: ianyway, i am a person who works part-time job at a supermarket bakery. even for me, and i am making above minimum wage, but even though i am making above minimum wage, i am only working part- time, so i am living not just

from paycheck to paycheck but what is even worse is i find myself slipping between paychecks at times. host: does this grocery store have a policy of only having part-time workers? caller: no, we do have full-time workers, but a lot -- but right now i am only working part-time. host: got it. ann in athens, ohio, democratic caller. caller: the personal call from tennessee, lot of people called to complain about people on food stamps and other government , there are people that have minimum-wage jobs and they have to get food stamps still. a lot of walmart workers still

have to get government help care and food stamps. minimum-wage should be raised. when i cannot figure out is, let's -- the argument is always, you are going to deplete small businesses, small start-ups who need some breaks. i'm always wondering why minimum wage, the standard cannot be set walmart whichoor has a multibillion dollar profits. why the rate cannot be different for a new start up business. i want to ask you guys at c- span2 program. i've been dealing a lot with nursing homes. the wages that the nursing aides make, bathetic wages compared to the work they do. and the ratio in nursing homes of aides to patients which lets

the private nursing homes make exorbitant profits off the backs of nurse's aides, who make pathetic wages and work hard. host: what is their salary? caller: in ohio, a lot of them start around $8.50 to $9. even after 15 or 20 years -- mostly women, the top wage earner is making like $15 an hour. the ratio of nursing aides in ohio yesterday 14 patients to one nurses' aide. that's going down. most nurses aides say they can handle maybe 8 to 10 patient and it has gone up. so now they have even more patients and making pathetic

wages and more on their backs. you guys should do a show focused on health care workers in particular nurses' aides, but they make. host: let me show you ohio's minimum-wage in your state. brenda in california, independent. caller: hello. i do believe the minimum wage will raise prices for consumers. there are few things that our government could do. we could recent amendments

4. we could rescind the work orders that put a lot of people out of work. we should deport illegals. and we have a majority of minimum-wage workers now and we keep bringing them in. it's not conducive to getting anywhere in this country. host: here is the minimum wage in california. mike in houston, republican. caller: good morning. i oppose raising the minimum wage. it's an artificial boundary. it does not represent a person's skills that. if a person is 17 and has no

skills, why what they earn more than their producer? are the employers compelled to pay them $8 or $7 an hour and if they have no skills? that's why you have a higher unemployment rate among kids. when i was an intern in d.c., they did not pay me, but internship provide an opportunity to develop your skills, to find out what you like, to find out how you treat customers, and to find out what you are good at. your pay raise becomes effective depending on how you are. when you build up your skills and find out what you are good at and you produce. host: are your business owner? caller: i am not, but i'm in sales. my commission is built on mccleamy performance.

host:. the texas minimum wage, $7.25. the cost of living in california speaks for itself. why regulate that? let the employer, let the student or a the normally young kids negotiate the wages themselves? their skills and their performance will demand a higher wage when they are worthy of it. the comparisons are irrelevant. host: that was our last caller. tomorrow morning's washington journal will be back in 7:00 a.m. eastern time. you can join us then for your calls, tweets, and e-mails. thanks for watching today. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [captioning performed